1 CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 S. No. 15 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 State of J&K and Ors. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA Vs. Abdul Razak Sofi ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 09.07.2025 1. There is a delay of 2629 days, in filing the review petition against the judgement dated 14.12.2017 passed by this Court in SWP No. 1895/2011, which is being sought to be condoned on the grounds stated in the application in hand. 2. Objections have not been filed by non-applicant/respondent. However, learned counsel for non-applicant/respondent has made an oral submission objecting instant application by stating that no sufficient ground has been made out in the application which would warrant extension of time in filing the appeal by condoning the delay. He further submits that when the review petitioners did not comply with the directions passed in writ petition, the non-applicant/writ petitioner filed a contempt petition against them, which appears to have prompted them to file review petition so as to avoid implementation of judgement of this Court although they could have availed of the remedy of the appeal that too within prescribed time against the said judgement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants/review petitioners submits that applicants, in order to succeed in their application, have given cogent and sufficient grounds therein for condoning delay. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record on file. 2 CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 5. Order has been passed in favour of non-applicant/writ petitioner way back on 14.12.2017 in SWP No. 1895/2011, whereby applicants/ writ respondents were directed to release salary of writ petitioner w.e.f. December 2000 till his superannuation i.e. February 2008 with a stipulation to release all retiral benefits including pension and gratuity forthwith in favour of petitioner. Respondents were also directed to complete whole exercise within a period of two months, failing which 18% per annum interest on amount calculated would be charged 6. Instant application is for extension of time by condoning the delay in filing review petition on the ground that the authorities took time to decide as to whether the order be appealed or not. Thus, it would be appropriate to go through Para 03,05 & 07 of the application:- “03. That it is also pertinent to mention here that after receiving the copy of order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir on 14.12.2017, the question of filing the review petition was examined by the applicants in light of the records. In the process, the applicants were required to collect the records from various subordinate offices obviously led to consumption of time mainly from SICOP, which submitted the complete details on 06.11.2024 as the respondent has not arrayed SICOP as a party, which resulted in passing above judgement as SICOP was necessary party to be arrayed as the respondent was posted there as Estate Manager and has balance accounts of amount of Rs.11,54,152/- after his transfer to Department of Rural Development & PR and has obtained LPC on court order dated 10.12.2004 (Sub Judge, Srinagar), in which SICOP was party, however, court has given liberty for appropriate action to be initiated under rules and thereafter respondent filed the petition in the year 2011 without arraying SICOP as party so that the detailed objections would have been filed by the SICOP by placing the whole matrix before the Court for deciding the case on merits. 05.That the delay in filing the review application is neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the applicants, but due to examination/consideration of matter at various levels, thus, the review application could not be filed well within the time. Hence the period of delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. 07. That it is a settled position of law that since the Government is impersonal machinery and decisions are taken at slow pace and certain amount of latitude is not impermissible and above all Government and private parties cannot be put on same footing in the matters of condonation of delay and peculiar characteristics of functioning of the Governmental conditions required adaptation of pragmatic approach for applications for condonation of delay.” 3 CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 7. The contents contained in the instant application, as aforesaid, are fantastic. Can it be said, and believed and/or accepted blindly, that it took applicants and its men and machinery long seven years to collect the file/documents concerning non-applicant/writ petitioner and thereafter draft, prepare and file the instant application with review petition? Answer thereto is and will be always “No”. Thus, contents contained in the application are illusory and rejected, as such. 8. If a litigant applies for condonation of delay in filing appeal/petition, he/she is required to explain why appeal/petition was not filed within limitation period itself. An explanation of delay from the period when limitation ended is not sufficient. The litigant is required to explain why appeal/petition was not filed before the expiry of limitation period. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 953, 2024 SCC Online SC 3612, has made certain observations while dismissing a petition for condoning delay of over five years in filing an appeal. Appropriate portion of the said judgement is worthwhile to be reproduced hereunder: “4. Evidently, there was enormous delay occurred at every stage i.e., from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court to till the date of filing the second appeal by the State. The judgement was passed by the First Appellate Court on 21.08.2014 and the same was communicated by the Government Advocate representing the State to the Collector, only on 25.08.2015 i.e., after a delay of one year. Causing 3 months’ delay, by letter dated 10.12.2015, the Collector informed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, about the passing of the judgment against the State and preferring a second appeal against the same. Thereafter, the Law Department took three years’ time and gave permission for filing appeal on 26.10.2018, which was sent to the Collector on 31.10.2018. Based on the said opinion, after preparation of the appeal papers, the State filed the second appeal only on 18.10.2019. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal, but the same was not properly explained by the State. 5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In MajjiSannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when 4 CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online SC 92, wherein, it was held as follows: “13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant. Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.” 9. Delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity, has been said by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jahangir ByramjiJeejeeboy (D) through his legal heir, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning inordinate delay. If litigant chooses to approach the court after lapse of time prescribed under relevant provisions of law, then he cannot turnaround and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by delay being condoned. The length of delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should 5 CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 be condoned or not. While considering plea for condoning delay, the court must not start with merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by a party seeking condonation. It is only if sufficient cause assigned by litigant and the opposition of other-side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. The Supreme Court in plethora of cases has said that delay should not be condoned as a matter of generosity. 10. Tendency of the State to file appeal, revision or SLP with huge delay without reasonable explanation has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vishnu Aroma Pouching (P.) Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 263. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is worthwhile to be reproduced as under: “3. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha &Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General &Ors v. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. - (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.” 11. A Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 2574/2020 titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Sabha Narain and others, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 266, was filed with delay of 502 days with an 6 CM No. 1769/2025 In RP No. 27/2025 C/w CCP(S) No. 362/2020 explanation given in the application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court has observed that it gives only a saga of moving of file from one place to the other and that too with long interludes. The Supreme Court also said that in fact, other than lethargy and incompetence of petitioner, there is nothing plausible which has been put on record and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly discouraged the State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk to the Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes as if the Limitation Statute does not apply to them. Looking to the period of delay and casual manner in which the application had been worded, the Supreme Court imposed costs on the petitioner for wastage of judicial time. The abovementioned judgement and law laid down therein by the Supreme Court is also applicable to the case in hand. When instant application is looked into in the context of above, it is not 502 days’ delay, but it is 07 years’ delay, which cannot be condoned. 12. In view of above, this application is dismissed being without any merit, resulting in dismissal of Review Petition as well. 13. Registry to list contempt petition on 13.08.2025. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 09.07.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 15.07.2025 10:28